advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XXI

Status
Not open for further replies.
hc25036 said:
One thing is for sure - a policy of 'wait and see how bad it is' will simply make a bad outcome (if the variant is very nasty) as bad as it could be versus making a good outcome (if the variant is not so infectious or virulent) a bit of a pain. Some of the reassuring stuff posted above is, well, reassuring, but includes caveats (not quoted above) that is is very early days and the tests (either good or bad outcomes) are far from definitive. The number of mutation points and some of the data from SA make me somewhat less sanguine than I was this time yesterday.

I'd be looking for some pre-emptive protections (maybe stopping direct flights and imposing quarantine) and some ramping up (ie trying to make it work properly for the first time) of perparedness of track and trace, a further push for boosters and first/second vaccinations. I'd also have the speech writers getting their crayons out so the spaffer in chief can practice saying 'plan B+'....
Click to expand...
I agree. As I think you recognize, the measures that we have to delay the arrival and spread are quite limited and rather imperfect. They probably do need to be activated but not relied on ostrich-fashion.

This is a rant. As a now retired engineer I have concentrated on setting and/or accepting measurable and achievable stretch objectives and working out how to get there. I have often had to work with amateur (and some professional) politicians whose overwhelming self-confidence allowed them to tell me that they have a great idea; I shall make it work in the way they say; and if it does not that's my incompetence instead of their ignorance and over-ambition. I learned to be diplomatic when required [1]; but to call them out plainly when appropriate to avoid the inevitable. Sorry for the rant but so many over-confident politicians [2] seem to have a finger in this pie that I think it's a recognizable situation.

New variants will arrive and spread for sure, and today's achievable delay may not be as large as desirable. Reacting quickly enough; working out how improve; and understanding how to mitigate impact is something where politicians need to to enable those experts prepared to take on the objective, and then step far enough away to leave them room to execute and take the right risks on our behalf - which may be counter-intuitive, without fearing ignorant blame for the clear uncertainties.

[1] A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you will look forward to the trip.

[2] It seems to me that anyone (of any political leaning) capable of being appointed to a political position is, by definition, not the right person to hold it.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Banning entry to the UK from six countries until we know what's going on is not a panicked response. It actually allows time so that a more considered approach could be taken measures. Reversing the decision to do so is easy; closure of borders was not "long lasting" and there is no reason it would be so in this instance. The loonies in the COVID Recovery Group won't let that one stick.
Click to expand...
All of the restrictive measures implemented by the government, including those relating to borders, have lingered. For a long time the UK had the most (pointlessly) restrictive border regime in Europe. It's demonstrably not as straightforward to roll these things back as you claim, especially when the loudest media voices - right, left and centre - are keeping up a continuous background noise about "lax travel arrangements". The government will be very happy to leave in place indefinitely some measures that are meaningless in terms of disease control but that directly affect some country or group no one cares about and indirectly affect many others. The loonies in CRG will be perfectly OK about this because it will not be them or their friends who are affected. There's also the immediate damage that's done by telling the world that transparency WRT diseases that emerge in a certain country will result in that country being isolated and abandoned.

As I've said, banning entry immediately might be the right thing to do but even if it is there will be costs: some consideration should be given to them.
 
John Phillips said:
New variants will arrive and spread for sure, and today's achievable delay may not be as large as desirable. Reacting quickly enough; working out how improve; and understanding how to mitigate impact is something where politicians need to to enable those experts prepared to take on the objective, and then step far enough away to leave them room to execute and take the right risks on our behalf - which may be counter-intuitive, without fearing ignorant blame for the clear uncertainties.
Click to expand...


I know that the political system in the UK is not ideal, but I think I’d rather have politicians who, in some sense, have to get elected, be accountable for the decisions rather than your expertocracy.

My problem with your idea is that the experts aren’t elected, so never have to face up to the very people effected by their decisions. And the decisions have an effect over multiple domains - health, economic, social - so there is no one expert who can decide, and no one expert in arbitrating the competing experts. And the concept of “right risks” is itself fraught with complexities because it involves actual disbenefits for ordinary people now, imposed in order to mitigate some possible future hazard.
 
mandryka said:
I know that the political system in the UK is not ideal, but I think I’d rather have politicians who, in some sense, have to get elected, be accountable for the decisions rather than your expertocracy. ...
Click to expand...
Yes - appointed in the right way to be accountable (and election of our type is only one means of appointment). But also note I did not say that the experts should set the objectives (and I don't believe that) - just be enabled to achieve the objectives they can accept independent of politicians who may think they may know how to achieve them.
 
John Phillips said:
I agree. As I think you recognize, the measures that we have to delay the arrival and spread are quite limited and rather imperfect. They probably do need to be activated but not relied on ostrich-fashion.

This is a rant. As a now retired engineer I have concentrated on setting and/or accepting measurable and achievable stretch objectives and working out how to get there. I have often had to work with amateur (and some professional) politicians whose overwhelming self-confidence allowed them to tell me that they have a great idea; I shall make it work in the way they say; and if it does not that's my incompetence instead of their ignorance and over-ambition. I learned to be diplomatic when required [1]; but to call them out plainly when appropriate to avoid the inevitable. Sorry for the rant but so many over-confident politicians [2] seem to have a finger in this pie that I think it's a recognizable situation.

New variants will arrive and spread for sure, and today's achievable delay may not be as large as desirable. Reacting quickly enough; working out how improve; and understanding how to mitigate impact is something where politicians need to to enable those experts prepared to take on the objective, and then step far enough away to leave them room to execute and take the right risks on our behalf - which may be counter-intuitive, without fearing ignorant blame for the clear uncertainties.

[1] A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you will look forward to the trip.

[2] It seems to me that anyone (of any political leaning) capable of being appointed to a political position is, by definition, not the right person to hold it.
Click to expand...

Nicely put! The textbook that covered my career had in the preface ‘Clinical Research is the art and science of achieving the possible in the face of the desirable’. I’m my case, rather than politicians we had marketeers…
 
mandryka said:
I think that’s unjustifiable fear mongering, unless you know something about this new variant that I don’t know.
Click to expand...

Think about the logistics then, never mind the regulatory process. JCVI is rooted in the 1950s.

A few months ago there was a paper in Nature describing the bad mutations that could happen - this new variant has many of them apparently. That is why there is such immediate concern.
 
Rich countries could have prevented new Covid variant
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-have-prevented-new-covid-variant-say-experts

'Adam Finn, a professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol and a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), warned that the approach of vaccinating and revaccinating increasingly low-risk people in wealthy countries would “rebound on rich countries”, noting they would end up with more deaths and more economic damage as a direct consequence.

“There isn’t any need for altruism here, just hard-nosed self interest – but somehow the politicians continue to fail to grasp this and those of us advising them are told very clearly that anything outside our borders is outside our remit,” he told the Guardian.'
 
gavreid said:
Think about the logistics then, never mind the regulatory process. JCVI is rooted in the 1950s.

A few months ago there was a paper in Nature describing the bad mutations that could happen - this new variant has many of them apparently. That is why there is such immediate concern.
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have said more. What I meant is that we don’t know very much about nu - we don’t know what sort of symptoms it produces, for example. And we don’t know how it will respond to the existing vaccines.

It’s impressive that it has been detected so quickly!

(why nu by the way, is there an epsilon through mu?)
 
mandryka said:
Sorry I should have said more. What I meant is that we don’t know very much about nu - we don’t know what sort of symptoms it produces, for example. And we don’t know how it will respond to the existing vaccines.

It’s impressive that it has been detected so quickly!

(why nu by the way, is there an epsilon through mu?)
Click to expand...

The SA authorities have done a brilliant job. There's a lambda already, I've not been following the variants around the world
 
mandryka said:
Sorry I should have said more. What I meant is that we don’t know very much about nu - we don’t know what sort of symptoms it produces, for example. And we don’t know how it will respond to the existing vaccines.

It’s impressive that it has been detected so quickly!

(why nu by the way, is there an epsilon through mu?)
Click to expand...

Nu has not been detected quickly it's been circulating for weeks, looks as though it's running rampant too.

Detected in Belgium so it'll like be here too in fact it must be being as it was the UK sequencing labs who detected it.

"The “Nu” Covid variant has arrived in Europe, with the first case confirmed in Belgium today.

Laboratories at Leuven University found a case of the B.1.1.529 strain after an unvaccinated young woman tested positive on November 22."


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...gers-south-africa-to-go-on-red-list-8gm6w27ff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top